No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

[sidestick stirrer]

Has anyone considered that the longer a pilot keeps flying, the less time they will be drawing from the pension fund after they do retire?
Or that if they either really enjoy or financially need to continue flying the big iron, with the present contract they just take the pension, thank you, and fly for the competition who are only too happy to sign them up, thereby potentially creating a negative impact on all those still employed at their original carrier?

[rudder]

10 pages - what a waste.

All of this came to pass at much, much larger airlines in the US (10,000+ pilot seniority lists) and none of the lame collective agreement changes suggested on this thread have ever been implemented at any carrier for post age 60 pilots.

Go ahead and keep trying to reinvent the wheel.

[Brick Head]

10 pages - what a waste.

All of this came to pass at much, much larger airlines in the US (10,000+ pilot seniority lists) and none of the lame collective agreement changes suggested on this thread have ever been implemented at any carrier for post age 60 pilots.

Go ahead and keep trying to reinvent the wheel.

Actually that is only true of the airlines that lost pension. Other airlines, particularly in Europe have been creative in the way they have dealt with it. But you are right. 10 pages of waste. Pretty clear to me the courts will have to state where the CHA ends and labor law begins.

No one on this forum will decide.

[Lost in Saigon]

From a pension prospective the difference between age 60 vs age 65 is 10% increase in pension.

Staying an extra 5 years may be only 10% for a guy with 30 years service. But for a guy with only 15 years at age 60, going an extra 5 years to age 65 makes a HUGE difference in your pension. Can be as much as 30%-40% more each month.

Most of the pilots hired in the last 10 years will only have 20-25 years at age 60. 5 extra years makes a big difference to them for 2 reasons:

1) Your pension formula is calculated on years of service.

2) Your best 5 years are going to be your last 5 years.

[Rockie]

10 pages - what a waste.

All of this came to pass at much, much larger airlines in the US (10,000+ pilot seniority lists) and none of the lame collective agreement changes suggested on this thread have ever been implemented at any carrier for post age 60 pilots.

Go ahead and keep trying to reinvent the wheel.

Actually that is only true of the airlines that lost pension. Other airlines, particularly in Europe have been creative in the way they have dealt with it. But you are right. 10 pages of waste. Pretty clear to me the courts will have to state where the CHA ends and labor law begins.

No one on this forum will decide.

Not a waste at all. This stuff needs to be discussed from the various view points if for no other reason than to show that they can be in the same room without tearing each others head off. The ACPA forum was shut down for that reason. But with only rare exceptions the quality of discourse on this thread recently has been relatively courteous, and for that I congratulate and thank everyone.

[Old fella]

From a pension prospective the difference between age 60 vs age 65 is 10% increase in pension.

Staying an extra 5 years may be only 10% for a guy with 30 years service. But for a guy with only 15 years at age 60, going an extra 5 years to age 65 makes a HUGE difference in your pension. Can be as much as 30%-40% more each month.

Most of the pilots hired in the last 10 years will only have 20-25 years at age 60. 5 extra years makes a big difference to them for 2 reasons:

1) Your pension formula is calculated on years of service.

2) Your best 5 years are going to be your last 5 years.

If you retire at 60 yrs of age with 15 years of pensionable time, all you get is 30% which is unreduced. Pension is reduced by age or length of pensionable time, which ever is higher. If you elect to go to 65, the best you will do is 40%.

If you are saying that by continuing to 65 can see increase in monthly income by as much as 40 %, you are going to require one @#$! of a salary increase for those 5 years between 60 to 65. I don't know airline flying, especially yours( I assume you are AC) but I would guess a junior FO to a senior Capt position within those 5 years would do the trick

[JayDee]

Someone here commented about eliminating the seniority system. Air Canada has to agree to ANY change in the seniority list let alone the seniority system.

An entrenched seniority system such as Air Canada's, allows the company to control the portability of your services. Under a seniority system once you have xx number of years under your belt you effectively lose the ability to take your services elsewhere because you are "locked" into the advantages that your years of service provide you.

With no seniority system in place you have nothing to lose therefore YOU control the portability of your career.

IMHO AC will never agree to a change in the present system in place because it is in their best interests to keep things like they are.

[Lost in Saigon]

If you retire at 60 yrs of age with 15 years of pensionable time, all you get is 30% which is unreduced. Pension is reduced by age or length of pensionable time, which ever is higher. If you elect to go to 65, the best you will do is 40%.

My math my be a little off, but the example you provide is a 33% increase. Increasing your pension from 30% to 40% is approx a 33% increase is it not?

[Lost in Saigon]

Someone here commented about eliminating the seniority system. Air Canada has to agree to ANY change in the seniority list let alone the seniority system.

It is my understanding that the company has no say in what we do with the seniority list. They have no desire and no reason to get involved. All they care about is making sure there is a warm body to fill the seat, and the total payroll cost.

[JazzJetDriver]

"It is my understanding that the company has no say in what we do with the seniority list."

Hmmm, is that so...Pulley et al seemed to think that Hollis Harris and the company would have a lot of say when it came to the Picher award, now you say they have no say? I do say....

[Lost in Saigon]

"It is my understanding that the company has no say in what we do with the seniority list."

Hmmm, is that so...Pulley et al seemed to think that Hollis Harris and the company would have a lot of say when it came to the Picher award, now you say they have no say? I do say....

The Connector/Air Canada Piche award was a totally different situation. That was an internal CALPA dispute involving two different companies and two different seniority lists with no direction from the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

Air Canada has no say in how we handle our own seniority list. Only the Canada Industrial Relations Board has jusrisdiction. (And now the CHRC/CHRT)

At least that is my understanding. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Jaques Strappe]

Has anyone read the statistics on life expectancy of pilots who retire at 60 vs 65? How much is that extra 15%-30% really worth in the end? Not trying to flame anyones posts or anything but I don't really understand this quest for money at a time when one should be enjoying the fruits of their labors.

To that point, with those statistics in hand, if anyone is forced to work beyond 60 as a result of this Vivien Kelly thing, it will be very easy to argue that doing so poses potential health risks and places a shorter life expectancy on to those individuals concerned. How do you think the CHRT will deal with that when it comes? This case is looonnng from over IMO.

[Rockie]

To that point, with those statistics in hand, if anyone is forced to work beyond 60 as a result of this Vivien Kelly thing,

Why would anyone have to work to 65? You get a full pension after 35 years, and qualify for early retirement after 25. How is this ruling going to change that?

[sepia]

To that point, with those statistics in hand, if anyone is forced to work beyond 60 as a result of this Vivien Kelly thing,

Why would anyone have to work to 65? You get a full pension after 35 years, and qualify for early retirement after 25. How is this ruling going to change that?

I can't believe you're so daft as to not understand this. Someone who would currently retire off the 777 with his best years all in the left seat there would expect a certain pension per year. With the greedy staying on the 777, no one moves onward into those positions. So at age 60, you may still retire, but just with a reduced pension. So you've now forced people to stay past 60 to get what they would have had otherwise, or take a hit on your pension.

[Old fella]

If you retire at 60 yrs of age with 15 years of pensionable time, all you get is 30% which is unreduced. Pension is reduced by age or length of pensionable time, which ever is higher. If you elect to go to 65, the best you will do is 40%.

My math my be a little off, but the example you provide is a 33% increase. Increasing your pension from 30% to 40% is approx a 33% increase is it not?

With a defined pension benefit under superannuation rules, it is 2% per year.

[Rockie]

To that point, with those statistics in hand, if anyone is forced to work beyond 60 as a result of this Vivien Kelly thing,

Why would anyone have to work to 65? You get a full pension after 35 years, and qualify for early retirement after 25. How is this ruling going to change that?

I can't believe you're so daft as to not understand this. Someone who would currently retire off the 777 with his best years all in the left seat there would expect a certain pension per year. With the greedy staying on the 777, no one moves onward into those positions. So at age 60, you may still retire, but just with a reduced pension. So you've now forced people to stay past 60 to get what they would have had otherwise, or take a hit on your pension.

Most people won't stay if they can retire at 60 unless you think everyone is greedy or needs to stay for their own personal situation, in which case your turn to be greedy will come in due time. And I believe the point was people having to stay, which is clearly not the case here. If they stay past 60 when they could comfortably retire at 60 that is their choice, not a necessity. Also, how do you know you won't have your best 5 years before 60 vs after? I don't know what crystal ball you use but it must be pretty good.

I don't know your background, but you suffer from this heightened sense of entitlement that ails a lot of our brethren. The world does not owe you a left seat on the 777 nor do the pilots ahead of you on the seniority list. Get over yourself.

You need to calm down and replace some of that anger with actual thought.

Before you think greed is what drives me, I will never see the left seat of a 777. I will never see the left seat of a 330. I will never see the left seat of the 787 or the 767 if we still have them when I retire. This ruling will stall me as much as it stalls you, but I would bet a lot of money I have fewer years left to actually advance at this company than you do. So please spare me the histrionics. You embarrass me to be associated with such an immature crybaby and it doesn't impress me.

End of rant. Despite my best efforts at avoiding doing that it felt good.

[Jaques Strappe]

Rockie

Do you know for absolute certainty that nobody will be forced to work beyond 60 without a penalty? Assuming that they would have qualified to do so prior to the award.

[Lost in Saigon]

Rockie

Do you know for absolute certainty that nobody will be forced to work beyond 60 without a penalty? Assuming that they would have qualified to do so prior to the award.

The answer is yes. No one will be forced to work past 60. Even right now no one is forced to work past 55. Anyone can retire at 55(or any age) with a reduced pension or retire at 60 with their normal pension. Why would it not be any other way? The pension rules are not going to change.

[Rockie]

Rockie

Do you know for absolute certainty that nobody will be forced to work beyond 60 without a penalty? Assuming that they would have qualified to do so prior to the award.

Without penalty or a reduced pension? No I do not. But knowing anything like that for certain equals entitlement, and there is far too much of that in this company. Nothing is that certain and you are smart enough to know that. However, you get what you negotiate and I don't rule anything out. I do know that standing around ranting and raving and acting like a bunch of spoiled crybabies won't do it for us. It's time for the adults to step up to the plate.

[Brick Head]

This will get sorted out.

Rockie is correct to a point. Many people will have had enough by 60. In fact it will take time for people staying in the select positions that achieve max pension, to actually impact pensions of those wishing to go at 60. It is will be kind of like a snow ball that gets bigger and bigger as it travels down the hill. eventually however the price tag for those wishing to go at 60 will be too high and so they too will stay.

Something else I would like to point out. Rockie's position on what constitutes age discrimination effectively eliminates a unions ability to divide the collective pie as they see fit. If the CHRT tries to eliminates a unions ability to divide the collective pie as they see fit they have gone too far. Way outside the limits of their jurisdiction. In fact if you listen to what the CHRT has to say on the matter. They expect their decisions to be acted upon. They expect any resulting problems and inequities that result to be collectively bargained by the parties to a successful conclusion. The CHRT's wording in the last decision is most probably just the CHRT saying they won't put up with anything that looks punitive or degrading toward the group. Which they won't.

If the CHRT does not see it that way I have a lot of confidence the appeals courts will have a hay day with a decision that usurps a unions right to collectively bargain and disperse the collective as is their right and responsibility. Particularly when the intent for the change was to prevent wealth transfer ( unintended disbursement of the collective pie) and has nothing to do with age.

Jaques,

Death as a result of being forced to work longer probably won't get the attention of a CHRT. No minority to protect.

[Rockie]

Rockie's position on what constitutes age discrimination effectively eliminates a unions ability to divide the collective pie as they see fit.

Not true. The union negotiates pay rates based on equipment and status, and those positions are bid upon and awarded based strictly on seniority which is determined by date of hire. Nothing arbitrary in that and fully within the norms of collective agreements and labour law.

Changing a person's established place on a seniority list or their rate of pay based on age is a different matter entirely. I'm sure you can see the difference.

[tonysoprano]

Work till you're 65 if you want. AC will now guarantee you that. ACPA on the other hand cannot guarantee your seniority number. ACPA rules the seniority list and how it gets administered. Surely the Human Wrongs Tribunal will not meddle in how this gets administered internally. Something tells me ACPA will not make it a priority in 2011 to change that one. You guys remember the term BOTL from the merger right? Of course you do, you're pretty much the same anti AC crowed from back then. I think the Constitution encourages rights for all but not at the expense of others. Do I foresee a 65 year old as an FO on the Emb or RP on the widebodies? Naah. Golfing or fishing post 60 is much more appealing. Here's what I suggest. AC loves to hire you guys back as sim instructors. Hey, it's better than the other choice.

[Jaques Strappe]

Rockie

Do you know for absolute certainty that nobody will be forced to work beyond 60 without a penalty? Assuming that they would have qualified to do so prior to the award.

The answer is yes. No one will be forced to work past 60. Even right now no one is forced to work past 55. Anyone can retire at 55(or any age) with a reduced pension or retire at 60 with their normal pension. Why would it not be any other way? The pension rules are not going to change.

Well, you went for the bait. Say what you will but with all the highest paying equipment occupied with the plus 60 crowd, don't think for a second that nobody will get a reduced pension if they decide to retire as planned at 60. This will undoubtedly affect the best five of many many pilots.

[Brick Head]

Rockie's position on what constitutes age discrimination effectively eliminates a unions ability to divide the collective pie as they see fit.

Not true. The union negotiates pay rates based on equipment and status, and those positions are bid upon and awarded based strictly on seniority which is determined by date of hire. Nothing arbitrary in that and fully within the norms of collective agreements and labour law.

Ok explain how the unintended transfer of the collective pie can be stopped by a union under your interpretation of what constitutes age discrimination?

Unless I'm missing something here, there isn't. Your interpretation effectively nullifies a unions ability to redress unintended collective distribution.

Correct?

The CHRT has no jurisdiction.

[Rockie]

Let's think about this for a second. If the union wishes to force guys to the bottom of the list based on reaching a given birthday, since most pilots are in the 30-50 range it makes much more sense to make that age 55 doesn't it? Hell, why put an age on it at all, why don't we do it when their hair turns grey? And if it's going to a vote that will probably pass since all those guys will get the expensive seats that much quicker.

Now how about those pesky women? Why don't we restrict them to the bottom half of the seniority list and cut their wages in half since they should really be at home making babies to begin with. And there aren't that many black pilots so let's do the same to them since there aren't enough of them to defeat that kind of vote.

Say, this is looking better and better all the time. The majority can vote to have non-Canadian born pilots restricted to the right seat. We can have all pilots in their 20's stay at the bottom of the list until they turn 30 (above those older than 60 though, we don't want to seem discriminatory). And we'll keep pilots who wear sock garters RP's forever just for being so old fashioned.

After all, it's our pie and we can slice it up however we feel like right? The HRTC has no jurisdiction.



Now, how about you explain to me how a person who occupies a seat the day before their 60th birthday, and occupies the same seat the day after is an unfair distribution of the wealth?